|
American Land Rights Association - Land Rights Network
PO Box 400 - Battle Ground WA 98604 Phone: 360-687-3087 - Fax: 360-687-2973 - Email: <alra@pacifier.com> - http://www.landrights.org Legislative Office: 508 First St SE - Washington DC 20003 Phone: 202-210-2357 - Fax: 202-543-7126 - Email: landrightsnet@aol.com Congress Returns - Counties on the Hot Seat Congress returns to work this week and the RUSH IS ON by the LAND GRABBERS to move CARA to a vote in the House Resources Committee in the next three weeks. It is critical that you Call your Congressman IMMEDIATELY, to oppose CARA. Send him or her a letter also, although time is getting short. Every Congressman may be reached at the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 225-3121. There is a temporary FREE NUMBER of (800) 648-3516. DO IT NOW!! NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IS SUPPORTING CARA. YOU MUST MAKE SURE YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONER OPPOSES HR 701. *** ALERT ***ALERT *** Counties Held Hostage to CARA for PILT Payments Your County Commissioners May Be Supporting CARA They may think your county benefits from the Federal Payment-In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program. If they do not support CARA, they may be allowing the statewide county association to use your county's name to say that your county is supports CARA. If CARA passes Congress, the National Association of Counties (NACO) and many counties will be a major reason why. As CARA advocates seek to rush to judgement on HR 701, the fact some urban and rural counties support CARA is helping some Congressmen rationalize their willingness to support CARA. As more information comes out, a lot of Commissioners are now objecting to CARA. There are many reasons for counties with Federal or State public land to be concerned. By writing your Congressman and Senators quickly, your commissioner or supervisor could help slow or kill CARA. >>>>>>>TAKE THIS ANALYSIS TO YOUR COMMISSIONERS HERE'S WHY CARA HURTS YOU AND YOUR COUNTY You may know that the National Association of Counties (NACO) is Supporting CARA because of potentially larger PILT payments. So are numerous Statewide Associations of Counties that are dominated by urban counties. YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONER MAY EVEN BE SUPPORTING CARA. Many supporters have not looked carefully at the long-term impact on their local county. The full funding of PILT payments is not worth the negative economic impacts many counties will suffer. Mandatory spending entitlements like CARA and capping payments like PILT through CARA ties the hands of Congress and counties and takes away their ability to respond to the changing needs of society. WHY SHOULD THE COUNTIES BE FORCED TO GIVE UP THEIR TAX BASE TO GET THEIR PILT PAYMENTS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BY LAW? IN EFFECT, YOUR COUNTY IS BEING HELD HOSTAGE OVER RECEIVING ITS PILT PAYMENTS. CARA advocates are trying to use PILT as a way to keep counties quiet in the battle over CARA. Members of Congress supporting CARA appear to be extorting cooperation from the counties. They are undermining your economic future and they're going to get away with it if CARA passes. Please read the following message carefully and take a copy to your local newspaper. Take a copy to your Commissioners or Supervisors. Pass it around the community. You don't have much time. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION. THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE IS EXPECTED TO TAKE UP CARA BEFORE THE END OF JULY. You can help stop CARA, but you must act quickly. You need to get your Commissioners to urge your Congressman to oppose CARA. Providing a draft letter will usually help. A DRAFT LETTER IS ATTACHED BELOW AS A STARTING POINT. You should modify it to suit your needs. When your Commissioner agrees to write your Congressman opposing CARA, you need to request a copy of the letter. Don't let them buzz you off. If you don't see a letter, then you have to assume it didn't happen. READ THIS CAREFULLY: THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONER SHOULD ASK WHEN CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACQUIRING PRIVATE LAND FOR PUBLIC USE: -----What will be the total impact on county tax revenues considering increased PILT and reduced economic activity? -----What will be the impact on funding essential land management activities such as fire protection? This is important considering the condition of Federal land and the likelihood of current management philosophies to contribute to long-term risk of catastrophic fire. -----Will setting up major new entitlements tend to reduce funding of essential activities? This should be easy to appreciate when millions of acres across the West have been destroyed by fire this year and fires continue to ravage as we speak. -----Are there hidden minefields for counties in CARA? Several. For example, if the CARA formula for creating a trust account from Outer Continental Shelf Oil Revenues passes Congress, it will set a terrible precedent for potentially revising the formula for how coal, oil and gas revenues are distributed to states and counties. This could have a huge impact on local schools in many states. Counties and CARA A Methodology for Analyzing the Long-Term Impacts of CARA on County Revenues One of the more nefarious provisions of CARA is a plan to fully fund Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). Many counties have struggled for the last twenty-years to gain full funding of PILT. American Land Rights and many other organizations have always supported fully funding PILT. When the key sponsors of the CARA legislation suggested they could add a provision to fully fund the program, NACO and many counties jumped to support the legislation. This full funding of PILT is fixed in formula at a constant, year 2000 level. It cannot appreciate to cover inflation or increasing costs. Counties may not have completely considered the long term implications of their support for CARA. One of the other major provisions of CARA is that a significant amount of funding ($450 million per year) could be spent for land acquisition within the boundaries and adjacent to existing National Forests, National Parks and Fish & Wildlife Preserves and National Monuments or any new areas that may be created. Environmental groups have a large laundry list of expansion plans for existing federal areas. In addition, CARA provides an extra $100 million per year for conservation easements which will further erode the local tax base. PILT payments frozen in time cannot compensate counties for these losses. CARA also includes provisions that could allow States and local governments to purchase land. It is estimated the total potential funding for land acquisition could be as high as $2.5 billion per year. Before jumping to support CARA, Counties should: =====1. Examine the private lands within and adjacent to the political boundaries of the federal land, State land, and areas of interest to environmental groups in their county and consider what economic activity will be lost or gained if more lands are made part of various federal or State land designation and ownership systems. The long term consequences of fire and the costs associated to protection as well as the total effect on county budgets should also be considered. =====2. The effect on economic activities on the lands likely to be acquired is a most critical consideration. Given federal land management over the last several years, and the objections to economic and recreation activity in federal areas by environmental groups, it is safe to assume there would be little or no economic activity generated if private lands are federalized by CARA through land acquisition. So, if the private lands within or adjacent to the boundaries of your national forest or other public land system are acquired, which businesses and how much employment activity will be lost? For example, the entire North Woods of Maine and the Northern Forests of New York, Vermont and New Hampshire are land acquisition targets for the environmental community. These groups have set their sights on 26 million acres for new Federal parks, refuges and national forests. The North Woods is almost all private land at this time. How many jobs will be lost in the timber and recreation communities if even a small portion these lands are turned into new federal and state designations or National Monuments? There is no simple way to get this data or perform this analysis. Each county should make their best estimate to understand the potential impacts of CARA on their tax base and the economic future of their county. =====3. Examine the tax revenues and fees (property taxes, assessments, etc.) that are generated from the private lands within the political boundaries of the federal lands within their county. Between 1993 and 1998 the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management studied property tax revenues in counties that receive PILT. That study was aimed at attempting to understand how the combination of PILT and 25% Payments (logging and other multiple-use revenue sharing) would compare to property tax payments if the federal lands were privatized and managed in a manner similar to current federal management prescriptions. The results are dramatic and have broad application to how counties should think about CARA. The results are summarized later in this document. =====4. Examine the costs and savings of federalizing the private lands within their county. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS MUST ALSO BE EXAMINED: -----Will more federal land increase our costs of providing fire and safety services? -----Will more federal land increase peak visitor use and over-tax our existing infrastructure? -----Will increased unemployment and poverty result from these land transfers? -----Will the jobs that may be generated through the addition of new federal lands pay similar wages to the existing jobs in the county? -----Will the new jobs and economy have similar economic multiplier effects when compared to the jobs that are likely to be lost? For example, will any seasonal recreation, fast food or motel service jobs contribute in a way to equal lost resource based jobs such as farming, mining, grazing or forestry? -----What have been the promises verses actual results in terms of visitor use days to counties made by federal agencies and environmental advocates promoting new parks and other federal designations? For example, at Redwood NP in California local officials per promised 2.4 million visitor use days and got only 400,000. At Canyonlands NP in Utah the promise was 1 million use days against only 100,000 actually received. At Voyageurs NP in Minnesota they received only 200,000 after being promised 1.2 million visitor use days. The economic benefits and tourism delivered was a disaster in each case compared to the lost jobs and economic activity. -----Will environmental groups allow the new roads and infrastructure necessary to encourage broad based family recreation and tourism in new or expanded federal or state areas? -----Will applying Federal management to the "new" federal lands lead to increased fire risk to all adjacent federal and private lands and adjacent communities? To protect your county's economic and social future, these and other questions must be examined carefully. Consider the following information from a Forest Service and BLM study on what would happen to County Property taxes if federal lands were privatized. Property Tax vs. PILT Dollars Per Acre (Does not include the impacts from reductions in economic activity) East-------------(I) $6.61------- (II) $1.69-------(III) $1.20 Interior --------- (I) $0.78------- (II) $0.55-------(III) $0.37 Pacific West---(I) $3.49------- (II) $2.02-------(III) $1.87 Alaska----------(I) $0.72------- (II) $0.17-------(III) $0.12 United States--(I) $1.48-------(II) $0.68-------(III) $0.54 (I)-----Region--Property Tax & Harvest Tax Rates (II)----Full PILT Funding & Current Revenue Sharing (III)---Current PILT Funding (1997) and Revenue Sharing To understand how this data relates to CARA and counties: (1) the reader must first understand how much private land there is within and adjacent to political boundaries of the federal lands in their County; (2) which lands might be added to Federal or State systems; (3) what federal areas could be expanded if the federal agencies and environmental groups get their wishes; and (4) that PILT may not compensate counties for their losses due to the purchase of conservation easements. The Forest Service provides a lot of this data on its website. Counties should also acquire data for other federal land management agencies. County plans might contain this information in some cases. Then examine the real tax value of these lands and compare whether or not federalization makes sense. The table above shows that private lands in forest counties would generate 2.17 times the property taxes that the combination of fully funded PILT and 25% Payments. As time goes on counties who sucker for the CARA model will forgo any increases in property taxes and economic activity that will occur. In some parts of the country the property tax value is nearly 4 times that generated by PILT and 25% Payments. None of this considers the removal of tax base due to conservation easements. Consider the following: Private Lands Within Forest Service Boundaries vs. Average Property Taxes Paid Non-Federal Acres Within National Forests - Estimated Annual Property Tax Value East--------------------(I) 22,288,538--------------------(II) $ 146,930,636.00 Interior----------------(I) 9,197,339--------------------(II) $ 7,173,924.00 Pacific West----------(I) 6,401,582--------------------(II) $ 22,341,521.00 Alaska-----------------(I) 2,381,096--------------------(II) $ 1,714,389.00 United States---------(I) 40,268,555--------------------(II) $178,160,467.00 (I)-----Private Land Acres Within Forest Boundaries by Region (II)----Approximate Annual Tax Revenue Value That is Generated from Property Taxes On Those Private Lands Based on this analysis, CARA, through PILT, will produce approximately $300 million per year in payments to counties. PILT currently produces about $145 million/year in payments to counties. Thus, counties should see a gain of approximately $155 million per year from PILT as a result of CARA. If you believe the proponents of CARA only $450 millions per year will be spent on federal land acquisition. That is assuming Congress does not attempt to increase the funding from the new CARA Land and Water Conservation (LWCR) Trust Fund each election cycle as they have in the past with LWCF land acquisition funding. $450 million is likely just the starting point. Imagine the impact of the $1 billion per year in federal acquisition money some in the environmental movement are shooting for. Over time it will get worse than that. USING JUST THE NATIONAL FORESTS AS AN EXAMPLE Beyond federal land acquisition, as much as $2 billion per year could be spent, should States and local governments decide to focus on private lands within the current Forest Service estate. Most of CARA is available for land acquisition. If that happened virtually all private lands within the boundaries of the National Forests could be acquired within the next 15 to 18 years. And counties could lose up to $170 million per year in private property taxes if the federal, State and local governments choose to concentrate on private lands within the Forest Service estate. ADDING EVEN MORE FEDERAL LANDS This estimate does not include the acreage in areas proposed for expansion around existing federal areas or those areas proposed for huge new parks, national forests, refuges, monuments and other Federal areas that are bound to be added to the Federal land system simply because CARA provides such a large incentive to environmental groups to create new areas. Thus the PILT payments from CARA are likely to be vastly outweighed by the loss of local tax base alone. This does not include the impact of conservation easements on the tax base. It also does not include the forfeiture of the even larger current and future economic activity on any private lands acquired that becomes part of the public system. LOST JOBS County Commissioners and Supervisors will also have to consider the cost of lost jobs and economic activity. In FY 1996 the Forest Service produced over $3.5 billion worth of direct, indirect, and induced employment activity by harvesting a little over 473,000 acres. Or approximately $7,400\acre harvested. If all lands acquired as a result of CARA are timbered and were being harvested by the private landowner the potential impact could be as low as $3.3 billion\year and as high as $18.5 billion per year. In all likelihood the potential economic impact will fall in the middle of this range, because private landowners harvest more volume per acre and complete those harvests in a much more efficient manner. FIRES AND ENTITLEMENTS COST COUNTIES Commissioners and Supervisors should also consider the fire season of 2000 to understand how private lands could be treated by future federal land managers. This year we have seen federal land managers stand back and allow cataclysmic fires to devastate our federal forests. More than 5 million acres have been charred. Federal fire fighters have been directed to build only hand lines in confronting these fires where private land managers would have utilized bulldozers to construct firebreaks. ALICE IN WONDERLAND Federal land managers have restricted the use of air dropped fire retardant in drainages where salmon and trout are found, despite the reality that the fires are destroying the vary shade and forest habitat these fish need to survive. Private land managers are not encumbered by the current Administration's "Alice in Wonderland" approach to forest management. Counties will be giving up many of the commercially valuable private forests, the economic activity they produce, and quite possibly the very forests themselves. We've only discussed the costs of CARA using Forest Service lands. When counties examine the BLM, Wildlife Refuge, national park, and other federal lands they should quickly realize that CARA is a bum deal. When they start to add-up the economic impact and other consequences of converting the private lands within their county to the CARA federal land anchors they will inherit, there is no questions that most Counties will conclude Congress Should Kick CARA to the Curb!! COUNTIES SHOULD DEMAND WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TOO BY LAW, NOT TRADE MANHATTAN ISLAND FOR MORE BEADS. CONGRESS SHOULD FUND ITS OBLIGATION TO THE COUNTIES. IT SHOULD NOT ALLOW CARA ADVOCATES TO USE PILT PAYMENTS TO EXTORT COUNTY SUPPORT FOR CARA. Speak to your County Commissioner - tell them the entitlement mentality is not acceptable in your county. Tell them working private lands generate 2 to 6 times the property tax value that a fully funded CARA entitlement and aid to dependent counties county welfare scheme will through a locked in time PILT payments program. Tell them that adding private lands to mismanaged federal systems does not make sense. Tell them November 8th is looming and that you are watching! WHAT YOU SHOULD DO -----Go visit your County Commissioner or Supervisor to discuss CARA. Take a copy of this message. Make sure you ask him to send a letter to your Congressman immediately. We've enclosed a sample for you to use, but you are encouraged to re-craft the letter to include your personal thoughts and local specifics. -----If you cannot visit your County Commissioner, send him or her a copy of this message. It is our view that counties are owed the PILT payments and should not have to trade away their tax base to get the benefits for their citizens. -----Send copies to all allied groups and community leaders in your area. -----Ask your County Commissioner to send a letter to our address joining the Keep Private Lands In Private Hands Coalition or form their own coalition to oppose CARA. It is important that your county commissioner step forward and denounce CARA. It does not have to be by vote or a unanimous decision. Their personal letter to your Congressman really counts. If your Commissioner is interested in helping stop CARA, make sure YOU let us know. You should suggest they call us. But don't assume they will. Please make sure you tell us yourself. We'll help all the Commis sioners who want to oppose CARA get linked together. -----Ask your County Commissioner to put a letter to the editor in your local paper opposing CARA. That is already happening in different parts of the country. -----Pass this document on to your entire e-mail list. SAMPLE LETTER Dear Representative: I am a county commissioner from_____________ county. I am writing to ask you to strongly oppose HR 701 known as CARA and to do all in your power to keep this harmful legislation from becoming law. There are many reasons to oppose this bill. The authority for additional land acquisition is a threat to counties. Current law provides far more authority than the Congress has seen fit to implement through appropriations. There is no way for counties to make up the tax base losses from conservation easements. Further, we are concerned about ever expanding boundaries of existing parks, refuges and monuments plus the vast inventory of proposed new areas on the environmental group agenda. CARA provides an incentive for massive expansion of all these programs. Limiting the ability to set meaningful priorities and meeting new needs based on resources available while creating a huge entitlement through a mandatory appropriation is bad policy. It looks at land acquisition alone and sets it above any other activity including education and health care. It would add to Federal landownership that already includes one-third of the nation's total land area. Federal lands, as a whole, are poorly managed. For example, many Federal lands are at great risk of catastrophic fire. Highly destructive fires are occurring on a large scale as we speak. The cost of addressing the heavy fuel concentrations that exist will be huge. Current trends in Federal management are excluding commercial uses of wood products. This trend will exacerbate the fuels problem. Yet this bill would guarantee funding for land acquisition while fire must compete for a shrinking residual. That does not make sense. Additions to State public land systems should be left to the States' discretion. Many counties have supported the bill because of promised increases in PILT payments (Payments In Lieu Of Taxes). The counties should receive the payments to which they are entitled. It should not be necessary to spend billions more to provide the payments entitled under current law. Moreover the economic consequences of the bill are likely to be many fold times the additional PILT payments. It won't make much difference to increase payments to a county whose economic base has disappeared. Many counties are reconsidering their earlier support. Add appropriate local examples, concerns,etc. Again we urge that you strongly oppose this bill. An ill-advised bribe of many States in order to bestow large benefits on a few coastal states while ruining many rural economies is simply bad policy and must not be allowed to happen. Thank you so much for your attention, understanding and support. Sincerely |